The concept of vulnerability is well established in the climate change literature, underpinning significant research effort. The ability of vulnerability research to capture the complexities of climate-society dynamics has been increasingly questioned, however. In this paper, we identify, characterize, and evaluate concerns over the use of vulnerability approaches in the climate change field based on a review of peer-reviewed articles published since 1990 (n = 587). Seven concerns are identified: neglect of social drivers, promotion of a static understanding of human-environment interactions, vagueness about the concept of vulnerability, neglect of cross-scale interactions, passive and negative framing, limited influence on decision-making, and limited collaboration across disciplines. Examining each concern against trends in the literature, we find some of these concerns weakly justified, but others pose valid challenges to vulnerability research. Efforts to revitalize vulnerability research are needed, with priority areas including developing the next generation of empirical studies, catalyzing collaboration across disciplines to leverage and build on the strengths of divergent intellectual traditions involved in vulnerability research, and linking research to the practical realities of decision-making.

This article advances a vulnerability framework to understand how climatic risks and change are experienced and responded to by Inuit harvesters using a case study from Iqaluit, Nunavut. The article makes important contributions to methodological design in vulnerability studies, emphasizing the importance of longitudinal study design, real-time observations of human–environment interactions, community-based monitoring, and mixed methods. Fieldwork spanned five years, during which sixty-four semistructured interviews were conducted and historical records examined to develop an understanding of the processes and conditions affecting vulnerability. A local land use monitoring team was established, collecting ∼22,000 km of land use Global Positioning System (GPS) data and engaging in biweekly interviews (more than 100) on exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. This was complemented by analysis of instrumental data on sea ice and climate conditions. Results indicate that sea ice conditions are changing rapidly and affecting trail conditions, safety, and access to harvesting grounds. GPS data and biweekly interviews document real-time adaptations, with traditional knowledge and land-based skills, resource use flexibility, and mobility underpinning significant adaptability, including utilizing new areas, modifying trail routes, and taking advantage of an extended open water season. Sociospatial reorganization following resettlement in the 1950s and 1960s, however, has created dependency on external conditions, has reduced the flexibility of harvesting activities, and has affected knowledge systems. Within the context of these “slow” variables, current responses that are effective in moderating vulnerability could undermine adaptive capacity in the long term, representing overspecialized adaptations, creating the potential for further loss of response diversity and flexibility, and engendering potential downstream effects, creating trajectories of maladaptation. These findings challenge previous research that has argued that current resilience of the Inuit socioecological system is indicative of high adaptive capacity to future change and indicates that climate change might pose more serious risks to the harvesting sector than previously assumed.

Community‐based adaptation (CBA) has emerged over the last decade as an approach to empowering communities to plan for and cope with the impacts of climate change. While such approaches have been widely advocated, few have critically examined the tensions and challenges that CBA brings. Responding to this gap, this article critically examines the use of CBA approaches with Inuit communities in Canada. We suggest that CBA holds significant promise to make adaptation research more democratic and responsive to local needs, providing a basis for developing locally appropriate adaptations based on local/indigenous and Western knowledge. Yet, we argue that CBA is not a panacea, and its common portrayal as such obscures its limitations, nuances, and challenges. Indeed, if uncritically adopted, CBA can potentially lead to maladaptation, may be inappropriate in some instances, can legitimize outside intervention and control, and may further marginalize communities. We identify responsibilities for researchers engaging in CBA work to manage these challenges, emphasizing the centrality of how knowledge is generated, the need for project flexibility and openness to change, and the importance of ensuring partnerships between researchers and communities are transparent. Researchers also need to be realistic about what CBA can achieve, and should not assume that research has a positive role to play in community adaptation just because it utilizes participatory approaches. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:175–191. doi: 10.1002/wcc.376This article is categorized under: Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change > Learning from Cases and Analogies